Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Jun 2006 15:24 UTC, submitted by Tom Dickens
Thread beginning with comment 129730
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-13
Whether it's truly earned or not, there's no denying Apple has a reputation for kludgy first-gen products. Yes, one can argue that any "new" product is susceptible to unanticipated problems, but Apple seems particularly prone to it based on the publicity surrounding it.
I can't help thinking that Apple's intense focus on secrecy to build product hype may work against them here. By trying to keep innovative products under wraps until the last possible minute, it's virtually impossible to test them in anything but controlled conditions and likely with a relatively limited number of testers (better to avoid the potential for leaks).
Might just be something customers have to live with, or it might be something Apple needs to re-think. I suspect things will remain as they are because, are the article pointed out, their customers are inexplicably among the most ferociously loyal and likely most forgiving out there. To Apple's credit, it takes serious brand loyalty to be able to successfully operate that way. Though the opposite side of that coin is that a tarnished brand is almost worse than no recognition at all, because reputations are hard to shake.
Just my speculative 2c.